# C_2019065EN.01004002.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/40

---

Action brought on 10 December 2018 — AMVAC Netherlands v EFSA

(Case T-720/18)

(2019/C 65/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the EFSA decision of 1 October 2018, notified to the applicant on 2 October 2018, on the assessment of the confidentiality claims made in relation to the application for renewal of the approval process for Ethoprophos as an active substance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the EFSA decision of 1 October 2018, notified to the applicant on 2 October 2018, on the assessment of the confidentiality claims made in relation to the application for renewal of the approval process for Ethoprophos as an active substance;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging ultra vires







  — | The applicant submits that the documents to be published as a result of the contested decision should be published in sanitised form only because the defendant has undertaken an activity (proposal of a classification of substance) which is expressly outside its remit of powers. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging ultra vires

—

The applicant submits that the documents to be published as a result of the contested decision should be published in sanitised form only because the defendant has undertaken an activity (proposal of a classification of substance) which is expressly outside its remit of powers.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the breach of fundamental principles of EU law






  — | The applicant submits that the contested decision results from a procedure during which its rights of defence have not been respected. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the breach of fundamental principles of EU law

—

The applicant submits that the contested decision results from a procedure during which its rights of defence have not been respected.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 (1)







  — | The applicant submits that part of the documents to be published as a result of the contested decision contains information that results from a flawed and partial assessment, and their publication would undermine the commercial interests of the applicant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 (1)

—

The applicant submits that part of the documents to be published as a result of the contested decision contains information that results from a flawed and partial assessment, and their publication would undermine the commercial interests of the applicant.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1)

---